DOI. https://doi.org/10.

22219/FTHS
Received: April 2018
Accepted: May 2018
Available online: July 2018

The Characteristic of Porang Flour (Amorphophallus muelleri

Blume) Purification Use Ethanol and The Application as
Subtitution Agent on Chicken Sausage

Yovy Ermawati1), Noor Harini2), and Sri Winarsih2)*

1) Student of food science and technology department, Agriculture and Animal Science Faculty,
Muhammadiyah University of Malang, Indonesia
2) Food Science and Technology Department, Agriculture and Animal Science Faculty, University of
Muhammadiyah Malang, Indonesia

* Corresponding author: sriwinarsih26@gmail.com

Abstract: Porang flour contains high glucomanan which can reach 65 %. This research purposed to analyze the
physical and chemical of porang flour prurification use ethanol, and to describe the effect of proportion of tapioca
and porang flour addition to the physical, chemical, and organoleptic of chichken sausage. Randomized Complete
Block Design was applied with two phase. The first stage was purification process used ethanol with diffence
concentration (60%, 75%, and 90%). The second phase was the addition of porang and tapioca flour (gram) (0:20,
1:19, 2:18, 3:17, 4:16, 5:15, 6:14), all treatment was replicated 3 times. The results of first process showed that, there
was very significance difference effect to the glucomanan, rendemen, viscosity, and colour (lightness and yellowish)
of porang flour. The best treatment was the purification by ethanol 90% with 11,2 % water content, 0,78% ash
content, 58,20% glucomanan, 78, 11% rendemen, and 3,33 dPas viscosity. The second treatment results described
that, there was very significance effect of tapioca and porang flour addition to the water content, ash content, fat,
protein, carbohydrate, colour intensity (L, a+, and b+), and organoleptic (taste, aroma, appearance, and favorite
product) of chicken sausage.

Key Words: porang flour, ethanol, chicken sausage

Introduction
Sausage is an innovation food product obtained to fine meat (not less than 75%)
mixing by starch which able to add with or without spices, and other food additives
that are allowed and incorporated into a sausage shell (SNI, 1995). The main
problems that often arise in the manufacture of sausages is a weak texture (not
compact), too hard or too soft, and low water holding capacity. Therefore, to get a
chicken sausage with a good texture, it is necessary add of filler and binder. The
commonly used filler is tapioca flour. The excessive tapioca flour usage can make
the sausage texture become so hard. In that order, the innovative ingredients are
needed to be substituted with tapioca flour as a filler in making chicken sausage.
Porang flour contains high glucomannan that can reach 65%, which able to improve
the quality of chicken sausage. Glucomannan is a water-soluble polysaccharide
having hydrocolloid properties with Water Holding Capacity (WHC) value up to
1900% which able to improve temperature stability, as thickener, and wax (Herlina,
2012). The process of chicken sausage making with porang flour is started by
producing gel porang. Creating chicken sausage using porang flour directly as a
filler can produce lower physical quality than ideal standard.

33
The porang glucomanan purification researchs has been widely practiced in
Indonesia. However, the problem which always appear is the low brightness and
glucomannan level. This is suspected because, the purity process or proportion of
porang addition haven’t definetly standard. Therefore, preliminary research before
applicate the porang flour as filler in chicken sausages is needed. The purification of
porang flour commonly uses ethanol. According to Eka (2014), purification porang
flour using ethanol can dissolve the impurities, while glucomannan does not
dissolve in ethanol. Hence, it is necessary to analyze the effect of different ethanol
concentration to the porang flour purification process. The aimed of this research
was to analyze the effect of different ethanol concentration to the physical and
chemical properties of porang flour, and to investigate the physical, chemical and
organoleptic characteristics of chicken sausage due to proportion porang and tapioca
flour.

Material and Method

This research was conducted in Food Science and Technology Laboratory University
of Muhammadiyah Malang. The raw materials were chicken breast, porang flour,
sea grass (Euchema cottonii), KOH, aquades, ethanol (60%; 75% and 90%), and
tapioca starch. While solvent which apllied on analysis are aluminum sulfate salt,
water, isopropyl alcohol, H2SO4 (93-98% free N), NaOH 50%, HCl 0.02N, zinc
granules, boric acid and petroleum ether. This research consisted of 2 stages, the
first phase was porang flour production and the second one was porang and tapioca
flour application for chicken sausage production. The first process parameters were
glucomannan, rendemen, viscosity and color of porang flour. While the parameters
of second phase were physical, chemical and also organoleptic characteristics of
chicken sausage.

Statistical analysis: This research applied the Randomized Complete Block Design
(RCBD). All treatment in both of stages were replicated 3 times. The results were
analyzed used ANOVA (Analyzed of Variance). The first stage treatment consisted
of 60%, 75% and 90%, ethanol addition. While the second stage consisted of 7 level
treatment (porang and tapioca flour). The proportion was shown the Table 1.

Table 1.The proportion of porang flour and tapioca flour

Treatment S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7
Porang (g) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Tapioca (g) 20 19 18 17 16 15 14

Results and Discussion

First Stage. The parameters of first stage consisted of:
1. Glucomanan
The treatment of porang flour purification used ethanol gave significant effect to the
glucomannan (Tabel 2). The results showed that glucomannan content ranges from
48.07% to 58.20%. The trend was directly propotional, it means that increasing

34
ethanol concentration was followed by enhanching glucomannan content. This is
caused by the difference concentration will affects to the ethanol purity which
automaticly will affect to the glucomannan production. Shiroh (2000) stated that
the extraction process which followed by impurities separation from glucomannan
gave better product. Glucomannan produced by addition of ethanol then dried and
mashed obtain to glucomannan flour.

Table 2.Glucomanan content of porang flour based on purification process use ethanol
Ethanol Concentration (%) Glucomanan (%)
60 48,07 A
75 51,95 B
90 58,20 C

2. Rendemen
The purification treatment using ethanol with different concentrations was
significantly affect to the porang flour rendement (Table 3). The results indicated
that the average yield ranged from 77.34 - 78.11%. The results showed inversly
proportional, the enhanching ethanol concentration used followed by decreasing the
rendemen. According to Tadahiko (2003), ethanol and water in the glucomannan
purification process serve to rinse and precipitate glucomannan, thus it able to
increase glucomannan levels up to 90% or more.

Table 3. The effect of on purification process use ethanol to the rendemen

Ethanol Concentration (%) Rendemen (%)
60 78,11 b
75 77,96 b
90 77,34 a

3. Viscosity
The purification treatment using ethanol was affect to the viscosity of porang flour
(Table 4). The results showed that average viscosity of porang flour ranges from
2.27 - 3.33 dPas. The increasing concentration of ethanol followed by increasing
glucomannan content and it will affect to the enhanching viscosity of porang flour.
Glucomannan was found able to increase the viscosity because of it dissolved into
water. In addition, the viscosity is related to the water absorption properties, where
per 1 g of glucomannan will absorb water by 100 g of water. According to (Yusuf,
2011), glucomannan levels play an important role in increasing the viscosity of
porang flour because glucomannan is thick.

Table 4. Viscosity of Porang Flour based on on purification process use ethanol

Ethanol Concentration (%) Viscosity (dPas)
60 2,27 a
75 2,67 a
90 3,33 b

35
4. Colour Intensity
The purification treatment using ethanol with different concentrations affected
significantly to the brightness scale (L) and yellowish (b+) (Table 5) but it was
unsignificant to the reddish (a+) (Figure 1). The result showed that color intensity
on lightness ranged from 51.93 - 54.57. The increasing concentration of ethanol
increased the porang flour brightness. This was due to ethanol effectivly to
eliminate the dye in the porang flour. While the yellowish scale (b+) ranged from 5.4
to 7.77 and it was directly proportionally. This is because of purification process use
ethanol will dissolve impurities which cause flour colour become dark brown, as the
results the porang flour color becomes more yellow, such as porang tuber. The
ethanol concentration for purification process was not significantly to the reddish
colour and the scale ranged from 13.97 - 17.27.

Table 5. Viscosity of Porang Flour based on on purification process use ethanol

Ethanol Concentration (%) Lightness (L) Yellowish (b+)
60 51,93 a 5,40
75 53,17 b 6,77
90 54,57 c 7,77

Second Stage
De Garmo test was used for identified the best treatment. The second stage used
the raw material porang flour which washed by 90% ethanol concentration. The
water content of chicken sausage ranged from 70.06 - 74.37% (Table 6). The
increasing porang flour enhanced the water content of the chicken sausage. This
due to porang flour contains glucomannan, which is capable of binding water. In
addition, based on the analysis, the water content of porang flour reached 11.76%.
According to Eka (2014), glucomanan is a water soluble polysaccharide having
hydrocolloid properties with Water Holding Capacity (WHC) value up to 1900%.
The carbohydrate content of chicken sausages ranged from 5.8 to 11.26% (Table 6).
The enhancment of porang flour decreased carbohydrate level in the chicken
sausage. The biggest component of tapioca is starch. Starch is the second largest
carbohydrate reserve after cellulose on plant tissue. Starch contains two major
component tissues of amylose and amylopectin. According to Agustina (2011),
carbohydrate content of tapioca starch is 88,2%.
The chicken sausage texture ranged from 2.25 - 4.28N (Table 6). The increasing
porang flour addition, produced the chicken sausage which lower hardness level.
The declining of hardness is due to the porang powder is a hydrocolloid
glucomannan that act as binding agents. It binds the components or raw materials
of chicken sausage to be strong and compact. Porang flour has greater water
binding ability which can reach 1900% compared to tapioca flour which only 30%.
When steaming process is done, product elasticity become higher. Anggraeni (2014)
stated that starch and hydrocolloid collaboration is more susceptible to

36
gelatinization characterized by faster viscosity increase compared to 100% starch.
In general, the starch interacted with hydrocolloids has the same gelatinization
profile pattern with starch without hydrocolloids.

Table 6. The chicken sausage characteristics based on porang and tapioca flour proportion
Porang : Tapioca (g) Water content (%) Carbohydrate (%) Texture (N)
S1 (0 : 20) 70,06 b 11,51 d 4,28 d
S2 (1 : 19) 70,66 c 10,30 d 3,40 c
S3 (2 : 18) 71,96 d 8,43 c 3,10 bc
S4 (3 : 17) 73,03 d 6,78 b 2,97 bc
S5 (4 : 16) 73,65 de 5,68 ab 2,87 b
S6 (5 : 15) 74,18 e 4,44 a 2,67 b
S7 (6 : 14) 74,37 e 3,71 a 2,25 a
Control 63,37 a 21,39 e 2,12 a

Based on Table 7 showed that the average of chicken sausage lightness

ranged from 51.77 to 66.40%. The increasing porang flour decreased the lightness
level of chichken sausage. This brightness level is influenced by the filler basics
color, alike porang flour has a brownish yellow, while tapioca flour has white color.
While the reddish scale of chicken sausages ranged from 2.27 to 4.37. The
enhancement of porang flour usages increased the redness of the chicken sausage.
This is because of several porang tubers have reddish yellow. So the porang powder
has a higher natural red color element when compared with tapioca flour. Then
yellowish intensity scale of chicken sausage ranged from 7.9 to 11.3. It was
consistent with lightness, when porang flour increase made darker chicken sausage
and decreasing yellowish level.

Table 7. The chicken sausage colours based on porang and tapioca flour proportion
Colour Intensity
Porang : Tapioca Proportion (g)
L a+ b+
S1 (0 : 20) 66,40 2,27 11,30
S2 (1 : 19) 61,67 3,27 10,47
S3 (2 : 18) 60,57 3,53 9,93
S4 (3 : 17) 56,90 4,20 9,70
S5 (4 : 16) 55,20 3,63 8,07
S6 (5 : 15) 53,00 4,00 7,90
S7 (6 : 14) 51,77 4,37 9,07
Control 63,67 5,10 14,77

The organoleptic test results was shown Table 8. Commonly, the results
showed that increasing porang flour decreased the organoleptics score, included
taste, aroma, appearance, and favorite product. It because of porang gel could
absorb water opimally, so it will realese the spice which added. The score ranged
2,93 – 3,50 which described the taste was neutral to delicious. While, aroma score

37
showed tasty (3,00-3,47), the appearance indicated unattractive upto interesting
(2,47-3,87), and the most favorite product was porang flour 2 gram with 18 gram of
tapioca (3,70). According to Soekarto (2000), the most character which able to
attract consumen is appearance (colour).

Table 8. The chicken sausage organoleptics based on porang and tapioca flour proportion
Organoleptic
Porang : Tapioca Proportion (g)
Taste Aroma Appearance Favorite
S1 (0 : 20) 3,37 ab 3,47 b 3,87 c 3,50 bc
S2 (1 : 19) 3,50 ab 3,43 ab 3,63 c 3,67 bc
S3 (2 : 18) 3,30 ab 3,27 ab 3,07 b 3,70 bc
S4 (3 : 17) 3,23 a 3,23 ab 2,80 ab 3,37 b
S5 (4 : 16) 3,20 a 3,20 ab 2,67 a 2,90 a
S6 (5 : 15) 3,00 a 3,13 a 2,60 a 2,60 a
S7 (6 : 14) 2,93 a 3,00 a 2,47 a 2,53 a
Control 3,73 b 3,40 ab 3,90 c 3,83 c

Conclusion
Purification of porang flour using ethanol 90% was the best with glucomannan
58,20%, rendemen 78,11%, and viscosity 3,33 dPas. while the lightness 54,57 and
yellowis 7,77. Substitution of porang flour 1 g: tapioca flour 19 g produces chicken
sausage with moisture content 70,66%, ash content 2,19%, protein content 13,52%,
fat content 3,34%, carbohydrate 10,3% , and a texture of 3.4 N, good taste, pleasant
aroma, attractive appearance and favored by panelists.

References
Agustina, F. 2011. Ubi kayu. http://eprints.undip.ac. Diakses 28 Februari 2015.
Anggraeni. 2014. Proporsi Tepung Porang dan Maizena terhadap Karakteristik Sosis Ayam - Jurnal
Pangan dan Agroindustri Vol. 2 No 3 p.214-223, Universitas Brawijaya : Malang.
Arifin. 2011. Pengaruh Perbandingan Tepung Tapioka dan Tepung Maizena Terhadap
Mutu Tempura Ikan Kuniran ( Upeneus sulphureus ). Teknologi Hasil Perikanan. Universitas
Brawijaya. Malang
Badan Standarisasi Nasional (BSN). 1995. SNI Sosis Daging (SNI 01-3820-1995). Badan Standarisasi
Nasional. Jakarta.
Eka, A.S., Olim, dan M. Endang. 2014. Pemurnian Tepung Glukomanan Dari Umbi Porang
(Amorphophallus muelleri Blume) Menggunakan Proses Ekstraksi/Leaching Dengan Larutan
Etanol. Surakarta. Universitas Sebelas Maret.
Fellow, A.P. 2000. Food Procession Technology, Principles and Practise.2nd ed. Woodread.Pub.Lim .
Cambridge. England. Terjemahan Ristanto.W dan Agus Purnomo.
Shiroh. 2000. Clarified Konjac Glucomannan. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid..
Soekarto. 2000. Dasar-dasar Pengawasan dan Standarisasi Mutu Pangan. Institut Pertanian Bogor.
Bogor.
Tadahiko, T., 2003. Process for Producing Glucomannan Gel Particles. United States Patent 6558652.
tanggal akses 19 Desember 2009.
Yusuf H., 2011. Jurnal Teknologi Pertanian Vol 12 No.3. Hal. 143-152. Universitas Brawijaya.
Malang.

38